Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™. Welcome. Learn more and subscribe at revolution2-0.org
Thinking Through Gun Control (EP. 166)
As sane people, we all want to reduce gun violence. No sane individual or group wants to allow kids to die so they can have the right to own an AK-47. If you are one of those, stop reading, unsubscribe and turn yourself in. AK-47s are already illegal.
The perfect solution, admittedly unattainable, would be to have perfect foreknowledge of who would and who would not use guns illegally. Those who would never do anything wrong with a firearm would be allowed to buy and possess them, and the known-to-be gun criminals would be barred. Perfect. As with many issues, the perfect solution is unachievable, so let’s try to come as close as we can.
That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.
Let’s think through gun control together, and as always at Revolutions 2-0™ with the overall goal of promoting thoughtful, productive discussions, completely replacing cliche-based so-discussions that rest on the three-legged stool of incomplete facts, preconceived notions and insults and accusations.
Let’s use the search for a common goal here as a way of us all getting on the same page. And–and–as a way of flushing out disguised goals. Some proponents of additional gun control really want to ban all guns, but they are not ready to promote that as policy just yet. In the 3rd Democratic debate, Beto O’Rourke came out with a full-throated call for a mandatory buyback, confiscation, of “assault weapons” and “weapons of war”, specifically AR-15s and AK-47s; the audience responded enthusiastically. These two firearms should never be mentioned in the same breath. The AK is indeed a fully automatic weapon of war. The AR is a semi-automatic rifle using detachable magazines. Let’s listen to Wikipedia:
Manufactured by Armalite Rifle, hence the designation AR. No military or self-respecting terrorist group uses semi-auto rifles. Including the US. It is not an assault rifle; it is certainly not a “weapon of war.”
I gave these clear and accurate definitions of the two firearms to make two points. 1. If we are going to talk about banning either the purchase or possession of currently legal products, we should at least know what we are talking about. 2. Let’s not dance around issues and prevaricate in order to get to where we want to go. For example, if we want to ban semi-automatic rifles, then stand up and say that. Don’t call an AR an assault weapon in order to get there. We can have an honest and open discussion about banning semi-automatic rifles. We do not need to mislead people in order for them to get to the correct solution. Trust people to make the right decisions when they have the correct information. In other words, think better of the people, the citizens, the voters who are ultimately responsible for the decisions.
Here is an example of a potentially productive common goal related to reducing gun violence: Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, while allowing law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
Okay, Will, how do we do that? Good question. Here are some approaches:
Beware of anyone making the “need” argument, i.e., “No one needs an AR!” Perhaps, but no one needs a vacation home. Or needs to take a cruise. No family of 4 needs a 3.5K sq. foot home. And why would anyone need a 300 hp car? And who needs animal protein for dinner every night? We must never, ever allow governments to either take away things they deem unnecessary, or allow them to give away with taxpayer money all the things they decide that we need and deserve.
This issue, like all issues, must be discussed and decided rationally, with the applicable set of facts being applied to well-discussed common goals. And rational can mean passionate and dedicated; it cannot mean insulting and dismissive. We at Revolution 2.0™ are dedicated to the proposition of breaking the back of antagonistic, I win, you lose, cliche and accusation driven “discussions” that are currently the mainstay of our public dialog.
Five star general and two-time President, Dwight Eisenhower, agreed with the notion that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. But–but–he correctly observed that the planning process was vital regardless. Even if everything immediately deviated from plan, the foundation of the planning process is critical. Where was I planning to go, what changed, and how do I get back on track? That’s the winning formula, and that formula is impossible without the initial planning process.
In the same way, the Revolution 2.0 formula of seeking common goals, having rational, and perhaps passionate, conversations, focusing on the goals and not on either personal or political agendas, is the winning formula. This process will not always lead to the perfect solution, whatever that is, but it will always lead us away from the win-lose arguments of today to the win-win discussions of tomorrow. And there’s more on this subject at The Disloyal Opposition “Resist” (EP. 142).
As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.
And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.
If you liked today’s episode, other episodes or the revolution2-0.org site itself, tell another person. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.
Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.